Summary

This study sought to examine (1) the occurrence of
revictimization, (2) the impact of case processing in Quincy District
Court (QDC) on the disclosure of revictimization, and (3) victim
satisfaction with various components of the criminal justice
system. This study was undertaken as part of a secondary analysis of
data originally collected for a National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
sponsored evaluation of a "model" domestic violence program located in
Quincy, Massachusetts (RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE QUINCY,
MASSACHUSETTS, DISTRICT COURT, 1995-1997 [ICPSR 3076]). Administrative
records data were collected from the Quincy District Court's
Department of Probation, two batterer treatment programs servicing
offenders, and police incident reports, as well as survey data
administered to victims. Included are criminal history data, records
of civil restraining orders, probation department data on
prosecutorial charges, case disposition and risk assessment
information, data on offender treatment program participation, police
incident reports, and self-report victim survey data. These data were
collected with three primary goals: (1) to obtain the victim's point
of view about what she wanted from the criminal justice system, and
how the criminal justice system responded to the domestic violence
incident in which she was involved, (2) to get details about the study
incidents and the context of the victim-offender relationship that are
not typically available in official statistics, and (3) to hear
directly from victims about the defendant's reoffending behavior.

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

None

Restrictions

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Distributor(s)

Time Period(s)

1995 -- 1997

Date of Collection

1995 -- 1997

Data Collection Notes

The user guide and codebook and data collection
instrument are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine (1) the
occurrence of revictimization, (2) the impact of case processing in
Quincy District Court (QDC) on the disclosure of revictimization, and
(3) victim satisfaction with various components of the criminal
justice system. This study was undertaken as part of a secondary
analysis of data originally collected for a National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) sponsored evaluation of a "model" domestic violence
program located in Quincy, Massachusetts (RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN THE QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, DISTRICT COURT, 1995-1997
[ICPSR 3076]). The Quincy, Massachusetts, site was chosen for the
evaluation because researchers wanted to explore a setting in which a
policy of "aggressive enforcement" was actually practiced. Earlier
research revealed that the police, district attorney's office,
probation systems, and judges in Quincy shared a vision and had
developed a truly integrated, systemwide strategy incorporating the
best practices of full enforcement for a wide range of domestic
violence incidents. Beginning in 1986, the Quincy District Court
initiated what was once described as one of the nation's first, and
most comprehensive, proactive domestic violence programs. The court's
aggressive, pro-intervention strategy was recognized as a national
model by the United States' Violence Against Women Agency (VAWA) and
the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. In recent
years, the VAWA has designated the QDC as a national training site to
be emulated by other jurisdictions searching for an effective,
integrated systemwide response to domestic incidents. The four main
goals of the original research evaluation were: (1) to describe the
workings of the primary components of this model jurisdiction in its
response to domestic violence, specifically (a) what the police
actually did when called to a domestic violence incident, (b)
decisions made by the prosecutor's office and the court in their
handling of these incidents, (c) how many victims talked to a victim
advocate, and (d) how many offenders received batterer treatment
and/or were incarcerated, (2) to describe the types of incidents,
victims, and offenders seen in a full enforcement jurisdiction to
determine whether the types of cases coming to attention in such a
setting looked similar to cases reported in studies from other
jurisdictions, and (3) to interview victims to hear directly about
their experiences with a model court in order to examine the impact of
a rigorous intervention strategy upon a population of victims and
perpetrators of domestic violence.

Study Design

The original evaluation analyzed the actions of
police, prosecutors, and courts upon 353 domestic violence cases seen
by the QDC in Massachusetts over a seven-month period. To facilitate
the design, information was needed from multiple sources and
perspectives covering data from significant periods of time both
before and after the occurrence of the incident. Data were collected
from six sources: (1) Offender's criminal history data collected from
the QDC's Department of Probation, which provided criminal biographies
for all 353 defendants in the sample. For this research, each
defendant's criminal activity was analyzed both prior to the study
incident and for one year subsequent to that incident. (2) Civil
restraining order data that came from the Registry of Civil
Restraining Orders implemented by the state of Massachusetts and was
the first statewide, centrally computerized record-keeping system on
restraining orders. This registry was primarily designed to provide
the police and courts with accurate and up-to-date information on the
existence of active orders. The QDC Department of Probation provided
information from this registry on the number and type of civil
restraining orders taken out in Massachusetts against all 353
defendants both before the occurrence of the study incident and for
a one-year period following the study incident. (3) Prosecutor's
office/district court data collected from the QDC Department of
Probation. These data provided information on all 353 defendants
concerning prosecutorial charges. For each defendant in the study,
information was provided on up to three domestic violence-related
charges for the study incidents and any additional non-domestic
violence related charges. Data from the Quincy District Court also
included initial and final dispositions and their dates. (4) Batterer
treatment programs servicing the defendants in the study. Many study
defendants had to enroll in a batterer treatment program as a
condition of probation. Researchers contacted the directors of the two
batterer treatment programs that served the QDC and received data on
offenders' treatment completion status at the end of the study
period. (5) Police incident reports taken from seven departments
served by the QDC. These reports were used to measure the officer's
perspective and actions taken with respect to the incident, what the
call for service involved, characteristics of the incident, socio-
demographics of the participants, and their narrative description of
the incidents and their stated response. (6) A victim survey designed
to capture the perspective of the victims on the study incidents and
their handling. The interviews had three primary goals: (a) to obtain
the victim's point of view about what she wanted from the criminal
justice system, and how the criminal justice system responded to the
domestic violence incident in which she was involved, (b) to get
details about the study incidents and the context of the
victim-offender relationship that are not typically available in
official statistics, and (c) to hear directly from victims about the
defendant's reoffending behavior. Because one of the chief aims of the
victim survey was to tap into the victim's perspective about
experiences with the criminal justice system, victim interviews did
not take place until approximately 12 months after the occurrence of
the study incident. The research team used a one-year time frame
because they needed to wait until victims passed through contact with
the prosecutor's office and court. The victim survey produced a
revictimization rate substantially higher than that reported in
official criminal justice data. The secondary analysis of these data
was undertaken to examine victim re-reporting among those who reported
a new incident 12 months post target incident.

Sample

The sample of defendants and primary victims was selected
based on domestic violence cases that resulted in an arrest and
arraignment before the Quincy District Court during a seven-month
study period. All consecutive arrests for domestic violence involving
male defendants and female victims that occurred between June 1995 and
February 1996 were initially examined for inclusion in the final
sample. From that pool, the research team eliminated all cases
involving defendants and primary victims who were under the age of 17,
cases involving same-sex relationships, and cases involving male
victims and female defendants. The final sample was composed of 353
cases of male-to-female domestic violence. Of the final sample of
cases, victims from 118 cases completed the victim survey.

Universe

Any male defendant involved in a male-to-female domestic
violence case occurring between June 1995 and February 1996 and
resulting in an arrest or arraignment before the Quincy District Court
in Massachusetts.

Unit(s) of Observation

Court cases.

Data Source

Data used in the original evaluation (RESPONSE TO
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, DISTRICT COURT,
1995-1997 [ICPSR 3076]) came from administrative records data
collected from the Quincy District Court's Department of Probation,
two batterer treatment programs, and police incident reports. Survey
data were administered to victims.

Data Type(s)

administrative records data, and survey data

Description of Variables

Variables from administrative records include date
and location of incident, number of suspects, age and race of victims
and offenders, use of weapons, injuries, witnesses, whether there was
an existing restraining order and its characteristics, charges filed
by police, number and gender of police officers responding to the
incident, victim's state at the time of the incident, offender's
criminal history, and whether the offender participated in batterer
treatment. The victim survey collected data on the victim's education
and employment status, current living arrangement, relationship with
the offender, how the victim responded to the incident, how afraid the
victim was, victim's opinions of police and the prosecutor, victim's
sense of control, satisfaction with the court, victim's past violent
relationships and child sexual abuse, victim's opinions on what the
criminal justice system could do to stop abuse, and whether the victim
obtained a restraining order.

Response Rates

The response rate for the victim survey was 35
percent.

Presence of Common Scales

Original Release Date

2003-10-30

Version Date

2003-10-30

Version History

2003-10-30 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).